The main legal point established in the judgment is the allocation of responsibility for delays in construction and the applicability of composition fee as per the policy under the Delhi Co-operative Societies Act, 1972.

( 1 ) THE petitioner, a Co-operative Group Housing Society, duly registered under the Delhi Co-operative Societies Act, 1972 challenges the letter dated 17. 12. 1992 written by DDA demanding composition fee in sum of rs. 1,85,457. 80 and penalty in sum of Rs. 2,500. 00 for execution of lease deed, on the ground that the society was responsible for the delay caused in the execution of the lease deed and was responsible for delay in construction of the flats. Composition fee has been charged in order to extend the time for completion of construction by the petitioner of the Group Housing flats till 28. 03. 1992.

( 2 ) DUE to subsequent developments during the pendency of the writ petition, an amended writ petition was permitted to be filed to include in it, challenge to a further sum of Rs. 3,07,703. 00 which was paid by the petitioner to the respondent.

( 3 ) PETITIONER applied to DDA for allotment of a plot of land so that it could construct residential flats for its members. Plot No. 64, admeasuring 2. 083 acres at Patparganj was allotted to the petitioner. Physical possession at site was handed over on 29. 3. 1984 but, site was encumbered, in that, three huts existed at the site.

( 4 ) DEMARCATION plan on which factum of possession dated 29. 3. 1984 was recorded mentions as under :-"physical possession of land measuring 2. 083 acres has been handed over to M/s vardan Co-operative Group Housing Society Ltd. with 3 huts to be removed by dda. "

( 5 ) IT is pleaded by the petitioner that DDA took approx 3 years to remove the unauthorized hutments and thereafter only, perpetual lease deed was executed in favour of the petitioner on 10. 7. 1987.

( 6 ) IN the meanwhile, on 18. 9. 1985 M/s Raj Rawal Associates were appointed as Architects. On 18. 9. 1985, the Architect submitted the necessary application to DDA for sanction of the plans as per which the group housing complex could be constructed.

( 7 ) ON 8. 5. 1987, conditional sanction was accorded, on the terms stipulated therein. Sanction was valid for a period of 3 years.

( 8 ) THE petitioner claims to have complied with the terms of the conditions set out in the sanction letter dated 8. 5. 1987 and as a result, on 16. 6. 1987 building plans were released.

( 9 ) SINCE building could not be completed within 3 years, on 31. 5. 1990, the Architect sought extension of the sanction which was granted on 23. 7. 1990. Time was extended upto 15. 6. 1991.

( 10 ) THE complex being still incomplete, on 31. 12. 1991 further extension was sought. DDA agreed to extend the time but demanded a sum of rs. 1,85,457. 80 towards composition fee and Rs. 2,500/- on account of penalty for late execution of the lease deed.

( 11 ) STATING the facts aforesaid and raising a challenge to the two demands aforenoted, present petition was filed by the petitioner projecting the case that though the physical possession of the land measuring 2. 083 acres at plot No. 64, Patparganj, Delhi was given to the petitioner on 29. 03. 84, three hutments having a covered area of about 50-60 sq. yds. and situated in different locations in the plot existed which were to be removed by the respondent. In view of the location of the hutments and those occupying them, it was not possible to raise any construction on the plot till such time those hutments were removed for the reason DDA would not grant a sanction to construct any building till the land was freed of the encumbrance. That at the time when possession was handed over, an assurance was held out by the respondent that the hutments would be removed very soon. The respondent itself insisted that before the lay-out of the petitioner could be approved, one of the documents which the petitioner was required to file was NOC from the Director, Group Housing of the respondent itself that the plot of land was free from any unauthorized construction. That since unauthorized construction in the form of 3 hutments had continued to exist there, the Director, Group Housing of the re

Click Here to Read the rest of this document